HDR 131: Qaddafi’s March Madness

ALOHA, ALL!!

Hey Barry/Barack – have you noticed what’s happening in Libya? I realize you need to play golf and pick brackets for the NCAA basketball tournament, but seriously – have you noticed? Qaddafi has won and the people who were fighting for democracy lost (kinda like what happened in Iran last year while you sat back and did nothing.) In fact, Hillary announced that she would not be Secretary of State under a second 0bama administration (God forbid that should happen. Besides, I still think she’s planning to challenge him.) Anyhow, Barry/Barack, here’s an update from Libya: Qaddafi Bombs Benghazi as Son Says ‘Too Late’ for No-Fly Zone Over Libya – Bloomberg

The ongoing tragedy in Japan is horrible. And the lamestream media are eating it all up. What a perfect opportunity to sabotage nuclear energy as a viable option in the United States! They are nearly foaming at the mouth with dire predictions and doomsday scenarios – you’d think they’d been exposed to some type of radioactive substance that makes one not only stupid but a sycophant. At least the Wall Street Journal is a voice of reason in the media. Here’s an excerpt from today:

“After a once-in-300-years earthquake, the Japanese have been keeping cool amid the chaos, organizing an enormous relief and rescue operation, and generally earning the world’s admiration. We wish we could say the same for the reaction in the U.S., where the troubles at Japan’s nuclear reactors have produced an overreaction about the risks of modern life and technology.

Part of the problem is the lack of media proportion about the disaster itself. The quake and tsunami have killed hundreds, and probably thousands, with tens of billions of dollars in damage. The energy released by the quake off Sendei is equivalent to about 336 megatons of TNT, or 100 more megatons than last year’s quake in Chile and thousands of times the yield of the nuclear explosion at Hiroshima. The scale of the tragedy is epic.

Yet the bulk of U.S. media coverage has focused on a nuclear accident whose damage has so far been limited and contained to the plant sites. In simple human terms, the natural destruction of Earth and sea have far surpassed any errors committed by man.” (Read more at the Wall Street Journal: Review & Outlook: Nuclear Overreactions – WSJ.com)

Ask them to support “The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011” (S. 482 in the Senate & H.R. 910 in the House). This bold legislation would completely strip EPA of its ability to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, effectively stopping Obama’s back door cap and trade strategy dead in its tracks.

Final Thought: “I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.” –Thomas Jefferson

14 responses to “HDR 131: Qaddafi’s March Madness”

I would never contest either argument when it is given specifically by conservatives about liberal politicians. My point was perhaps made poorly. I was arguing that the Democratic populous (voters) are more level headed than Lee gives them credit. The reason I tried to argue from that standpoint is that I know the black population and the liberal voters are subject to much of the same divisiveness as the rest of us. Obama’s being black is nowhere near as important to the Democrats in the private sector as it is to politicians.

Let me try again. Briefly, what I meant is this. The Democratic Party is the epitome of unionized politics. They have to march lock-step. They do not think for themselves nor do they dare question the agenda they are spoon fed by their leaders. They are prone to world class circular reasoning and to being complete slaves to political correctness. I would suggest that 75% or more of the private sector Democrats would not tolerate much of either of these for long. I think the Party does a pretty good job of disguising how ‘out of touch’ the leaders’ will is with the constituency.

My argument hinged on what I see as holes in that disguise; you know; ‘the king has no clothes.’ I am guessing still, in the face of two good arguments that the voters in Democratic primaries are NOT going to throw their undying love and devotion on Barack Obama simply because he is black. If they think they have a better horse to run the race, it’s bye bye Barack.

“[T]he black population and the liberal voters are subject to much of the same divisiveness as the rest of us.”–Completely incorrect. Quite the opposite. Blacks have retained their collective racial identity, something which Whites have willfully sacrificed on the altar of PC and WLG. Liberals are agenda-driven, which means they are far more able to overlook specific differences in the name of advancing Progressivism (PUMAs notwithstanding). David’s mistake is projecting his own WLG and normal conservative purism onto two demographics that simply do not share it. Even after the Tea Party sold its soul in 2010, there are still conservatives who wouldn’t vote for a pro-choicer to save their lives. Or their country. But NOW hags would vote for a liberal male over a conservative female.

“Obama’s being black is nowhere near as important to the Democrats in the private sector as it is to politicians.”–Liberal grassroots activists–and typical liberals are by definition far more activist than conservatives–do care about that. Again, David is projecting his own WLG-driven colorblindness onto the people who impose WLG.

Add to all of this the increased pressure (i.e, political violence) sure to be seen in 2012, and you will see even conservatives supporting Obama just to avoid “a hundred cities… burn[ing]” (Glenn Beck’s words on why he says Obama could not be removed even if proven constitutionally ineligible).

Prediction: The 2012 convention of the National Black Republican Association will be held in the corner booth of a Denny’s… with room left for two guest speakers.

“Were these journalists ever ‘anti-war’? Or was all that coverage of George W. Bush as a Constitution-shredding global embarrassment just a convenient partisan campaign? If the No War for Oil crowd thought the run-up to war in Iraq featured a docile media, how on Earth must they feel about the docility of the press as Obama started dropping bombs on Libya? Someone pass the smelling salts.

“It’s pure and simple: The re-election of Barack Obama trumps all. The news media will bury anything negative that threatens his return in 2013.”

Oh, there are some liberals like that. In 2008 we called them “PUMAs,” and they supported McCain-Palin (and did a far better job doing so than the lazy, values-based conservatives did). These are people worthy of some degree of respect, despite their errancy on issues. And then, there is other 90 percent that live in places like Berkeley or elect people like Jim McDermott, Barbara Lee, and Barney Frank (and Keith Ellison). These–the majority, and the movement as a whole–are by nature and status anti-American (and part of the reason why the Founding Fathers knew to avoid a democracy).

Liberalism/Leftism is agenda-based, not issue-based. They ALL share to a degree the vision of the “stateless utopia,” and use politics to advance society toward that goal–complete equality of outcome, complete equality of persons and groups (at least in terms of perception), the erasure of all distinctions, the end of all ideologies, etc.. (In essence, the thankfully late John Lennon’s “Imagine”.) Whatever costs or steps are involved in getting there are justified–crime, double-standards and hypocrisy, the running (further) down of a minority race’s conditions, supporting ideological movements which they would hate but for their terrorism against the traditional pecking order, etc. People *as people* don’t matter to them, only the social and economic outcome. The point of concern is direction and outcome for their agenda, not the morality of their tactics or the values behind any given issue position. The vast bulk of differences within liberalism on issues or the movement are generally linear–how far, how fast–not lateral–“I’m a liberal, but I believe we should always and forever maintain an individual right to arms.”

So, liberals are a lot like Muslims. There are some moderate or reasonable ones who can be trusted and not treated out-of-hand as enemies of the country and our heritage. Then there are the other 90 percent.

Consider the following story as a template for use in understanding liberal/Leftist approach and attitude (just adapt specifics to whatever issue is at hand): A group of liberal/Leftists who toured the healthcare system of Communist Cuba (this long predated Michael Moore-on). There they witnessed lobotomies being performed on mental patients. One member of this group, who maybe qualifies for a little more credit than most, raised the point that in the U.S. they opposed lobotomies, yet they were occurring there in the system they were championing. Another member explained it quite simply to him: “There’s a difference between a capitalist lobotomy and a socialist lobotomy.”

David – I agree with you about common sense spanning across party lines (i.e. Dem & GOP). But as Lee explained, more and more the liberal agenda is the Democrat agenda. I’ve been amazed (but shouldn’t be) at how the Dems are in lock-step with 0bama’s Marxist plans. Even people I know who I THOUGHT were reasonable still give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they don’t want to admit they were wrong in electing this inexperienced, narcissistic joke.

Lee, your explanation is excellent. The liberal agenda (i.e. Dem agenda) is collectivism, not individualism. Individualism is what the Founding Fathers envisioned for our country. So the liberals truly have found their Messiah in 0bama – he is the ultimate collectivist.

I would like to weigh in, if y’all don’t mind. First, Hillary is running out of time. Gilia makes a sound point when she points toward her tenacity and guile, but I think a 70 year old Hillary has a tough time winning anything. Too old, too much exposure, and too much of the same talking points that really don’t advance anything but the 90’s version of political correctness. If she’s got it in her, she has to ‘git-r-done’ now.

Lee points to Barack’s bulletproof facade. He can say or do anything, and the first critic is damned to Hell for “racism.” Consider this Lee. If Barack takes his agenda, regardless of how far left, centrist, socialist, communist, Muslim, pacifist, or just unreasonable it might be to where he wants it to be, I think he is lost on America. The people of this country are not his concern and it is now obvious to most of us that they never were. Gilia knew this when he gave his “clinging to their guns and religion” speech.

The question that y’all are debating is really whether or not the Dems will throw the lever for self absorbed megalomaniac, or someone who fills the role of die hard liberal. My money says they will NOT follow their liberal dreams down the drain if they see a viable alternative.

You acknowledge this–barely–then go on to ignore it. You need to find a way to get past the need for “the first African-American President” to not fail. That is the second key point that no one wants to address, because they are scared to admit that a big chunk of the American electorate are effectively traitors acting above all in furtherance of an agenda as un-American and anti-American as Shariah Law.

The Left cares no more for “the people of this country” than he does, and thus the only thing he could do to lose them would be to go conservative! It’s not a matter of “following their liberal dreams down the drain,” but rather a Cloward and Piven approach.

Don’t make the mistake of projecting your own more conservative perspective onto Obama and the Left. They think in terms of the grand agenda, not specific concerns. And the grand agenda requires that Obama as the first Black (and Muslim, and foreign-raised, etc.) President must be seen as successful, in order to consolidate the damage to the tradition and heritage of our country. Whereas he can fulfill that role no matter what he does, he can by definition do no wrong in their eyes. They will support him regardless. (Again, don’t project your conservative value-based approach onto them. They don’t play by those rules.)

Thus for the Left Obama HAS to run. Obama HAS to get the nomination. And Obama HAS to win the election. For Obama to fail would be too great a setback for the centuries of hard work by what we call the Left to tear down what is good and righteous, in that it would discredit their Affirmative Action step in 2008. As one Black caller to Laura Ingraham’s show put it, “It took 240 to elect the first Black President… It might be 240 years until we elect the second.”

“Hillary is just are narcissistic as Barry/Barack.”–Not at all true. Obama’s people are built on narcissism.

“She is not ready to give up on her dream yet.”–Women’s looks fail before men’s. She knows she’s getting too old. Add to that the psychological shock in 2008 of the Clinton machine losing to an inexperienced and barely-known Black (and Muslim), and she’s clearly washed up.

“And those who are ‘pulling the strings’ are not the groups you mentioned, but the big money people.”–They might think that… until the nightsticks start swinging and the bullets start flying. They are accustomed to civilized political warfare. They are completely unprepared for a Black and Muslim Chicago street agitator whose race immunizes him from political criticism. (Remember Philadephia in 2008 and St. Louis in 2009–Obama’s people WILL use violence.)

Lee – Hillary is just are narcissistic as Barry/Barack. She is not ready to give up on her dream yet. And those who are “pulling the strings” are not the groups you mentioned, but the big money people.

“the Dems did successfully elect a black person to the highest office in the land”–No, it wasn’t just “Dems”. It included purist conservatives who didn’t like McCain and stayed home, and Bill Clinton’s “regular Americans” (I make a specific reference there–don’t guess, look it up) with White Liberal Guilt.

“he has already alluded to the fact that he may be a one-term POTUS, leaving himself that wiggle room”–That had far less to do with whether he would run again than it did whether he thought he would be reelected. (Plus, for a Muslim, “one term” can mean 30 years.)

“how can they top that? By electing a woman”–In 2016, maybe. After all, a lack of a second term for the Great Black Hope will point to the “first Black President” (since Bill Clinton) being a failure, thus actually backfiring. The Left HAS to get him one more term (at least). In any case, the point was that Hillary would not challenge Obama, not that she wouldn’t run apart from him (even though she won’t do that, either–SHE will be too old).

“if 0bama’s poll numbers continue to slide he will get ‘the talk’ from the Dem bigwigs”–You mean they would become “racists”? Though not as susceptible to WLG as conservatives and moderates, they also can be silenced by it (witness Howard Dean debating Al Sharpton in 2004 over how few Blacks Dean had in his cabinet as VT governor, when I probably have more guns in my closet than VT has Black people).

“We know others are pulling the strings & Barry/Barack may not have a choice in the matter.”–I doubt it. He’s too narcissistic. There are people who THINK they are pulling the strings, but they will be in for a big and painful surprise if they try to use it (SEIU, New Black Panthers, Muslim Brotherhood, far-Left Marxists, etc., etc., etc.).

“he has already alluded to the fact that he may be a one-term POTUS, leaving himself that wiggle room”–That had less to do with him running again than it did with his reelection chances. He’s willing to lose reelection in order to forward his agenda. (Plus, for a Muslim, “one term” can mean 30 years.)

How many times do I have to say that NO ONE can challenge Obama on the Democrat side? To do so would undercut the validity of their Affirmative Action hire, and very likely be “racist.” He cannot be allowed to fail. So it simply will not happen.

“Clinton told CNN on Wednesday that she is happy in her current role and does not want to become president, vice president or defense secretary. In an interview in Cairo, Clinton says she has no interest in running for president in 2016 and plans to spend the next two years at the State Department.”

It ain’t gonna happen, folks. No matter how logical it seems to you as a conservative, it ain’t gonna happen. Stop ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Obama is Black (and a Muslim), and thus cannot be opposed from the Left. They put the overall agenda first. Learn that.

Good points, Lee, but consider this:
1) Hillary has wanted to be POTUS since before Bill was elected. I don’t think she’s ready to give up on that dream yet, no matter what she says. She can’t state this now because then it truly would undermine her boos, Barry/Barack. But more than that, it would anger the Dem bosses who would refuse to support her, thus the kiss of death for her politically. She’s shrewd, and has ALWAYS been out for herself in everything she does.
2) The affirmative action concept is indeed in play here. And since the Dems did successfully elect a black person to the highest office in the land, how can they top that? By electing a woman. Plus, if 0bama’s poll numbers continue to slide he will get “the talk” from the Dem bigwigs that he should announce his intention to only hold office for one term. We know others are pulling the strings & Barry/Barack may not have a choice in the matter. Besides, he has already alluded to the fact that he may be a one-term POTUS, leaving himself that wiggle room.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
The Declaration of Independence